Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1887-04-27
LEAF FROM THE PAST.

why New Haven Had Not n Demo.
cratic President i'm 1853 Instead of
Franklin PIerce-James H. Pratt the
Cause.
To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
By tradition it comes down to us from
that distant day and time, 1852, that Con-
nectieut, and New Haven especially, lost the
proffered honor of nomination and election
made to one of New Ravens citizens. This
tradition unfolds itself as follows:
The Democratic convention to nominate a
| candidate for President of the United States
| was held in Baltimore in 1852. The conven-
ton was organized en- Tuesday of the week,
and commenced balloting on Wednesday
and SO continued through that day and
Thursday without result, except gloomy
outlook and forebodings as to possible final
result of not expecting a nomination. The
balloting, which had been manifold, was re-
sumed on Friday and continued without re-
suit until noon, when a recess in the pro-
ceedings was agreed upon. 1t was in this
crisis of anxious suspense as to the outcome of
the convention that during the recess the
Virginia delegation invited the Connecticut
delegation to conference, and proposed that
| if the latter would agree among themselves
without dissent or division and present the
| name of a candidate from Connecticut
| they, the Virginia delegation, on the reas-
sembling of the convention would present his
name to the convention, and thus the nomi-
nation of a candidate would at once be secur-
| ed, and that from Connecticut. The Connec-
| ticut delegation was twelve in number, and
| eleven at once agreed upon the name of
| Ralph 1. Ingersoll of New Haven, but there
| was twelfth (12th) man who dissented and
alone named Isaac H. Toueey. of Hartford,
| and refused to adopt the choice of Mr. In
| gersoll by his eleven colleagues; and thus
| the proposition of the Virginia delegates was
| not complied with, ana the name of Mr. In
gersoll was not presented And this (12th)
person was none other than the just deceased
ginia delegation by the Connecticut delegation
| that they could not agree unitedly upon a
| nam Erom Connecticut, lacking one in their
| nun. ssr, the Virginia delegation immediate.
| ly invited the New Hampshire delegation to
| meet them and made to them the same prop
| osition they had made to Connecticut. The
1 New Hampshire men at once unitedly named
Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire and up
| on the reassembling of the convention his
name was presented to the convention by the
Virginia delegation, and Franklin Pierce was
at once nominated q think unanimously and
elected, receiving the entire electoral vote of
| twenty-seven States. The electoral vote of
the four remaining States was cast for Gen
eral Winfield Scott.
There is proverb or maxim, ftDe mortuis
nil nisi bonum;" say nothing but good of the
dead. The proVerb should have been, ode
mortuis nil nisi veritas;' say nothing but
truth of the dead. What prompted James T.
Pratt to such action as that described above,
which deprived Connecticut and New Haven
especially (Which is the chief part of Con-
necticut of such an honor9 Two answers
may be given: First, He was votary of
Hartford, Hartford was his Connecticut and
he embraced the opportunity of inficting
upon New Haven the old-timed and still
existing Hartford prejudice and jealousy of
New Haven. He was signal exponent of
that at the Baltimore convention.
Again Governor Pratt was. a
candidate for General in 1850,
when his rival for the nomination was Thorn
as H. Seymour. In that convention was
Mr.. RalphI I. Ingerson as a delegate who
favored the nomination of Governor Sey
mour, who was nominated and elected. This
occurred in 1850, and the Baltimore conven-
ton in 1862, when Mr.. Pratt turned from
Connecticut the chief honor in her history.
Is comment necessary? G.
New Haven, April "A, 1887.